I’m somewhat astonished – although without facts, it’s difficult to know if it’s a justified astonishment – at this CNN report out of Oregon that the occupiers of a federal wildlife refuge were found innocent of nearly all charges (the last charge, of theft, was not resolved). I’m a little puzzled – ok, really puzzled – how folks can occupy a federal facility, without permission, while heavily armed, and NOT be convicted.
But, like I said, I don’t have all the facts. I am looking forward to hearing someone who sat through the trial, or at least studied the transcript, explain why the jury could not find them guilty. Having sat on a jury roughly a year ago myself, weighed the evidence, and found the defendant not guilty, I do understand that sometimes the evidence is not what you might want, and that the particular requirements of the charges are not meant. You’re left feeling something illegal happened, but exactly what does not match the charges – and you can’t make up your own. So you find them not guilty.
I shan’t speculate further, since I suspect we all know the possible problems with the system.
Or, possibly, this is the beginning of the end of the American system.
